Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

SL6827

DIS Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Honestly, if they had done that I probably wouldn't have looked at the charts beyond noting that shift.
What, if they had just raised the studios? I wouldn't have a problem at all if they raise the studios based on demand, because that is what they are supposed to do, right? But we all know this is working out for a greater purpose.
 

KAT4DISNEY

Glad to be a test subject
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
What, if they had just raised the studios? I wouldn't have a problem at all if they raise the studios based on demand, because that is what they are supposed to do, right? But we all know this is working out for a greater purpose.
That would have still caused a look because the documents state that where there is an increase there must be a decrease.
 

wdrl

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2009
For me, those documents back up my interpretation of changes allowed, or not allowed, to a unit. I'm interpreting that Units are comprised of Vacation Homes. For some resorts the Units may have been identical in their composition (not certain on that) but they were varied at some resorts. As referenced the real estate percentages that are sold are percentages of the units that are represented by a certain number of vacation points which for each unit was determined by assigning a fixed number of points to specific Vacation Homes which are within those units. The units in total represent the resort.

In order for the units to remain unchanged then the points allotted to each Vacation Home that was the basis of that unit also needs to remain unchanged - unless every single Unit of the resort had the same underlying basis of Vacation Homes.

I'm also not a real estate lawyer though.
Keep in mind one major distinction: Points are numerical representations of the real estate interest making up a Unit. But that real estate interest is determined by, for ease of understanding, "size" or "square footage." As long as the "size" or "square footage" remain unchanged, then the points will remain unchanged.

At BLT, a two-bedroom vacation home's real estate interest is represented by 19,640 points and a Grand Villa's real estate interest is represented by 34,975 points. BLT has only three Unit configurations: All Units containing a single two-bedroom vacation home are allotted 19,640 points; all Units contain two two-bedroom vacation homes are allotted 39,280 points; and all Units containing a single Grand Villa are allotted 34,975. If you know that Unit 87A has a Grand Villa, then you know that the Unit is allotted 34,975. It doesn't matter whether its a Lake View GV or a Theme Park GV; all Grand Villas are worth the same real estate interest.

When someone buys a 160-point deed at BLT, their percentage of real estate interest will be either 0.8147%, 0.4073%, or 0.4575%, depending on which configuration their Unit has. Their ownership interest will remain the same throughout the life of the Unit.

The BLT point chart has undergone several changes over the years. The cost of a two-bedroom vacation home can go up or down, or a specific two-bedroom can be moved from the Theme Park View category to the Standard Category. But its real estate interest will always be equivalent to 19,640 points. In addition, an owner's percentage of real estate interest will remain constant.

If you add up all of BLT's Units, the resort's total points come to ~5,733,530. Those 5,733,530 are then placed on BLT's point chart. There are 50 different slots on the BLT point chart that must absorb those 5,733,530 points. It doesn't matter which Units the points are coming from, or whether they can see the Castle, the Lake, or the laundry loading dock. DVCMC can put those points anywhere it wants on the point chart. And once the points are on the chart, DVCMC is only constrained by the 20% cap in making changes from one year to the next. The only exception to that last statement is that the point chart must always have at least one night that can be booked at the minimum night point requirement as specified in the Declarations.

Edited to change the number of slots on the point chart from 110 to 50.
 
Last edited:

WebmasterDoc

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Aug 14, 1998
For me, those documents back up my interpretation of changes allowed, or not allowed, to a unit. I'm interpreting that Units are comprised of Vacation Homes. For some resorts the Units may have been identical in their composition (not certain on that) but they were varied at some resorts. As referenced the real estate percentages that are sold are percentages of the units that are represented by a certain number of vacation points which for each unit was determined by assigning a fixed number of points to specific Vacation Homes which are within those units. The units in total represent the resort.

In order for the units to remain unchanged then the points allotted to each Vacation Home that was the basis of that unit also needs to remain unchanged - unless every single Unit of the resort had the same underlying basis of Vacation Homes.

I'm also not a real estate lawyer though.
For OKW, each building is a 'Unit'. All OKW Buildings have dedicated 2BRs and lock-off 2BRs (there are no dedicated Studios or 1BRs at OKW). A few Buildings also have GVs in addition to the dedicated and lockoff 2BRs. Most Buildings are 2 stories and a few are 3 stories, so they vary in the number of Vacation Villas in each one as well as the sq footage of the building itself - but Member ownership is expressed as a % of an individual Building and not as a % of an individual villa within the building. The % is related to the sq. footage of the entire building (or Unit in the case of other DVC Resorts).

Resorts after OKW use the same formula, but to my knowledge are not specific buildings like OKW, but areas of villas within the resort. The % used is then expressed as a whole number of vacation points which the DVC Member will receive annually.
 

WB1971

Mouseketeer
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
What, if they had just raised the studios? I wouldn't have a problem at all if they raise the studios based on demand, because that is what they are supposed to do, right? But we all know this is working out for a greater purpose.
Wrong. That is exactly what they aren’t supposed to be able to do. How can anyone reasonably know how many points to purchase if the type of unit they want can be indiscriminately be raised by 20% a year? If they shift between seasons to adjust for demand, that still gives one the opportunity to book using the same points, if you are willing to shift dates. Raising all seasons for a room type is not in the spirit of the program. Likely not in the letter of the law either.
 

WebmasterDoc

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Aug 14, 1998
I got a question here. Of course raising the points for the one bedrooms was beyond ridiculous, but was raising the points for the studios more justified? I mean hasn't the demand for them grown some what, especially with people like me who bought in with a small contract and will stay for a shorter amount of time?
The 1BR point costs at OKW were raised only for the Adventure and Choice seasons, but not for Dream, Magic or Premier. (I have not looked at other resorts except HH which had no changes at all).

While the anecdotal information we use all the time about reservation tendencies may suggest Studios become unavailable first, followed by 2BRs and 1BRs does not include information that during Adventure and Choice seasons, the 1BRs are still reserved at most resorts and points for the 1BRs have also been raised as a result for those seasons. That the 1BRs were NOT raised for Dream, Magic and Premier while Studios were raised for those seasons, does suggest that the reallocation reflects an appropriate indication of balance for the overall reservation system.

We need to look at the overall results of the reallocation and not focus on just Studios which appear to be the accommodation of choice for many members at this point in time.
 

KAT4DISNEY

Glad to be a test subject
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Keep in mind one major distinction: Points are numerical representations of the real estate interest making up a Unit. But that real estate interest is determined by, for ease of understanding, "size" or "square footage." As long as the "size" or "square footage" remain unchanged, then the points will remain unchanged.

At BLT, a two-bedroom vacation home's real estate interest is represented by 19,640 points and a Grand Villa's real estate interest is represented by 34,975 points. BLT has only three Unit configurations: All Units containing a single two-bedroom vacation home are allotted 19,640 points; all Units contain two two-bedroom vacation homes are allotted 39,280 points; and all Units containing a single Grand Villa are allotted 34,975. If you know that Unit 87A has a Grand Villa, then you know that the Unit is allotted 34,975. It doesn't matter whether its a Lake View GV or a Theme Park GV; all Grand Villas are worth the same real estate interest.

When someone buys a 160-point deed at BLT, their percentage of real estate interest will be either 0.8147%, 0.4073%, or 0.4575%, depending on which configuration their Unit has. Their ownership interest will remain the same throughout the life of the Unit.

The BLT point chart has undergone several changes over the years. The cost of a two-bedroom vacation home can go up or down, or a specific two-bedroom can be moved from the Theme Park View category to the Standard Category. But its real estate interest will always be equivalent to 19,640 points. In addition, an owner's percentage of real estate interest will remain constant.

If you add up all of BLT's Units, the resort's total points come to ~5,733,530. Those 5,733,530 are then placed on BLT's point chart. There are 110 different slots on the BLT point chart that must absorb those 5,733,530 points. It doesn't matter which Units the points are coming from, or whether they can see the Castle, the Lake, or the laundry loading dock. DVCMC can put those points anywhere it wants on the point chart. And once the points are on the chart, DVCMC is only constrained by the 20% cap in making changes from one year to the next. The only exception to that last statement is that the point chart must always have at least one night that can be booked at the minimum night point requirement as specified in the Declarations.
You've outlined the interpretation that I thought you meant. I still don't feel it may be representative of that understanding in this section because of the use of the term "given unit" when the Vacation Home point reallocation never references a given unit. It doesn't seem to make sense to refer to unit in the manner you reference because of that so could only go back to Vacation Home as the underlying basis of a unit when following the requirement that increases must be offset by decreases. Just my interpretation.

But within all the language how did they ever outline or justify the lock-off premium as allowable? Most especially at resorts that have dedicated 1BR's and studios?
 

KAT4DISNEY

Glad to be a test subject
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
The 1BR point costs at OKW were raised only for the Adventure and Choice seasons, but not for Dream, Magic or Premier. (I have not looked at other resorts except HH which had no changes at all).

While the anecdotal information we use all the time about reservation tendencies may suggest Studios become unavailable first, followed by 2BRs and 1BRs does not include information that during Adventure and Choice seasons, the 1BRs are still reserved at most resorts and points for the 1BRs have also been raised as a result for those seasons. That the 1BRs were NOT raised for Dream, Magic and Premier while Studios were raised for those seasons, does suggest that the reallocation reflects an appropriate indication of balance for the overall reservation system.

We need to look at the overall results of the reallocation and not focus on just Studios which appear to be the accommodation of choice for many members at this point in time.
OKW is the only WDW resort that had that pattern though. If you look at the picture of all the WDW resorts it's a different story that says 1BR's are almost as popular as studios.
 

WebmasterDoc

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Aug 14, 1998
OKW is the only WDW resort that had that pattern though. If you look at the picture of all the WDW resorts it's a different story that says 1BR's are almost as popular as studios.
If that is the case for other WDW Resorts, it may suggest that the 1BRs are being reserved at those resorts too - maybe not as quickly as Studios, but still being reserved before the 60 day breakage inventory.

I've not seen any reports for 1BR point charts other than OKW and HH as I have personally reviewed those resorts.
 

skier_pete

DIsney-holics Anon
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
I feel like the issue of the lockoff premium is being lost in all these discussions. Raising the lockoff premium benefits only Disney and doesn't benefit the membership as a whole. (Some members I suppose benefit from the lower 2bedroom rate, but overall since Disney pockets the excess points it is still to their benefit.) I worry that the other questions are going to lose this point in the mix.

As far as the lawsuit goes, I support it, but financially I cannot see putting much money up. Since i don't own a lot of points, the personal financial loss is small ($100 a year) and I c a t justify putting much behind it because of that.
 

freediverdude

Was very touched by the Tapestry of Dreams parade
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
I understand the point about this not affecting the percentage of unit ownership, but that doesn't change the fact that the verbiage in the POS of a lot of the resorts specifies that they are only allowed to increase or decrease the points needed for reservations within a vacation home for use days by offsetting that with a corresponding increase or decrease on another use day. It specifically uses the term "within", which excludes what they are doing here by offsetting from other vacation homes. At least that is how I am reading it. And I understand that verbiage wasn't in webmaster doc's original old key west paperwork, but it's in a lot of the others.
 

crvetter

DIS Veteran
DVC Gold
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
I understand the point about this not affecting the percentage of unit ownership, but that doesn't change the fact that the verbiage in the POS of a lot of the resorts specifies that they are only allowed to increase or decrease the points needed for reservations within a vacation home for use days by offsetting that with a corresponding increase or decrease on another use day. It specifically uses the term "within", which excludes what they are doing here by offsetting from other vacation homes. At least that is how I am reading it. And I understand that verbiage wasn't in webmaster doc's original old key west paperwork, but it's in a lot of the others.
CCV specifically states within.
 

MommaBerd

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Wrong. That is exactly what they aren’t supposed to be able to do. How can anyone reasonably know how many points to purchase if the type of unit they want can be indiscriminately be raised by 20% a year? If they shift between seasons to adjust for demand, that still gives one the opportunity to book using the same points, if you are willing to shift dates. Raising all seasons for a room type is not in the spirit of the program. Likely not in the letter of the law either.
This is my thought/question, too. When I first was researching and looking into buying DVC (re-sale) several years ago, this was one of my concerns - could Disney just raise the points required for the room over time? I both read discussions and even asked about this, and the answer I walked away with was that Disney could raise the points needed in one season but had to lower in another - and my recollection is that meant within the same unit size too.

I own at BCV, which points chart hasn’t raised as many eyebrows (though the 2BR week when we typically stay has increased 5%). But, I feel Disney is operating in bad faith with some of these point reallocations, *especially* at the resorts like Poly where the bungalow points are being shifted to the studios. That’s just wrong. But more than anything, they are continuing to create bad will with people who are their biggest fans...
 

DougEMG

DIS Veteran
DVC Gold
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
When I go to the comptroller site and look at the official records for the sale/purchase. It has the following lines that I think are important.

"The timeshare unit described below at the resort is commonly known as Disney Saratoga Springs Resort, Contract #7065674.000, 400 Points, Orange County, Florida."

"An undivided 0.8759 % interest in Unit 77A of Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort, a leasehold condominium...…"

"Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as 400 Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Points are merely reflective of Purchase's Ownership Interest...…"

My take away from this is that I own 0.8759% of unit 77A, the points are just a administrative convenience. Unit 77A has a total of 45,667 points, of which I own 400, hence the 0.8759%. What this means though is that they can't change the total point value in unit 77A, it must always equal 45,667 points. They can certainly change the points within seasons for unit 77A, but it always must total to 45,667 points. The owners of unit 77A MUST always have the points required to book unit 77A for the entire year because that is what they actually own. What Disney can't do is increase the points required to book unit 77A and then decrease the points required to book unit 1A. That is increasing the ownership of one member at the expense of another, not legal.

My assumption is that when the Treehouses were added to SSR, those were probably new units (you can't add on to existing units as that would change the ownership %), meaning that none of the new units with Treehouses would of had studios in them. So when Disney did the reallocation to increase the treehouses while decreasing studios, they should not have been allowed as they are not in the same unit. But as no members complained, they got away with it.

I suspect that it is the same at the POLY with the bungalows being separate units all by themselves, which means they can't reduce bungalows and increase studios as they are going to be in separate units.

Now if Disney had of sold us a percent of the entire resort, then they could do whatever they want with reallocations, but by including the unit I think they have a set of handcuffs on what they legally can do, provided anyone holds them to it of course.
 

zavandor

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
I am not a lawyer and I am not even an English native speaker, so I may not be interpreting the docs correctly and I appreciate others giving their interpretations. However I'm not sold on yours, @wdrl.

If you reread the language in the POS, please note that there is NO requirement that points "can only be moved within a Vacation Home." I have copied the quoted text from Post #1 of this thread:
If I understand your point correctly, the POS says that DVC can "move the points within a Vacation Home", but it doesn't say that DVC "can only move the points within a Vacation home". Hence they can move points within a vacation home but also somewhere else.

If we make a contract and I give you access to the pool in my house and I write: "you can sunbathe within the pool boundaries and 10 yards from the pool", you cannot come and subathe in my living room, because the contract gives you the right to go wherever you want within 10yd of the pool but also anywhere else as it's not explicitly prohibited.
Unless there is a paragraph saying "DVC can do whatever they want except what it's explicitly prohibited", then in that paragraph is described the only way they can do a reallocation.

The only limitation imposed on DVCMC regarding "Unit" is stated in the second part of the POS that is in Post #1 of this thread:

"provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation."

To date, none of the reallocations since 1996 have resulted in any changes to the number of Vacation Points within a given Unit. Every Unit's total points has remained unchanged since the day they were declared (well, there is an exception with Aulani Unit 01A, but that had nothing to do with reallocations). Even after the 2020 reallocation none of the Units will have changes in the number of points allotted.

So if my % of ownership remains the same, they can do whatever they want to the points required to book.
Can you please point me to the paragraph where they say that the total number of points needed to book the whole resort must remain constant? Because if that sentence doesn't bind them, then they can freely double the points for every day of the year, and only decrease a couple of days just to be compliant with the paragraph that says an increase must be balanced by a decrease, like Drusba pointed out in the other thread.
Implication of this are even worst than just the lockoff premium increase.

 
Last edited:

wdrl

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2009
"Can you please point me to the paragraph where they say that the total number of points needed to book the whole resort must remain constant?"

I read the same language in the POS as others, but I have a different interpretation of its meaning. Therefore, I arrive at a different conclusion as to how reallocations can be implemented.

My theory about point reallocations is just that, a theory. I might be completely wrong about my theory and my interpretation of the language in the POS. However, I believe my theory is generally valid because it conforms with all the facts related to a reallocation and with establishing a point chart for a resort. Let me use two examples to illustrate my point.

1. Both BLT and AKV have had specific vacation homes reclassified from one View category to another. Despite these changes, the Residential Units containing those specific vacation homes have not seen any changes in the total number of points for those Units. The number of points required to reserve those vacation homes for the year has changed, yet the Unit's points has remained constant. How do you explain this? In my theory, its because the number of points in a Unit is based on its relative "size" and has nothing to do with View category or type of accommodation. If you subscribe to the theory that a Unit's points represents what it takes to book the vacation homes contained in the Unit for the entire year, then we should have seen changes to the number of points allotted to that Unit. But its a confirmed fact that over the years we haven't seen any Unit's point change. This fact fits my theory better than the alternative theory.

2. The 60 Treehouse Villas at SSR are contained in 30 Residential Units, each Unit comprised of two Treehouse Villas and no other vacation homes. Some people have voiced the opinion that since the THVs' Residential Units have no studios, one-bedrooms, or two-bedrooms, then a reallocation that increased the cost of the THVs on the point chart and a subsequent reduction in the costs of studios, 1BRs, and 2BRs that reside in other Residential Units is invalid. This believe is based on the assumption that a reallocation must be "point-neutral" at the Unit level. My theory does not make that assumption because it does not consider the type of vacation homes comprising the Unit. Instead, my theory holds that reallocations are "point-neutral" at resort level, not the Unit level. Thus, DVCMC can change point requirements for a THV on the point chart and shift that increase/decrease in points to other vacation home types on the point chart because it is not encumbered by which Units these points are coming from. Once again, my theory explains how DVCMC could change the costs of the THVs; the alternate theory doesn't explain it.
 

Madame

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
"Can you please point me to the paragraph where they say that the total number of points needed to book the whole resort must remain constant?"

I read the same language in the POS as others, but I have a different interpretation of its meaning. Therefore, I arrive at a different conclusion as to how reallocations can be implemented.

My theory about point reallocations is just that, a theory. I might be completely wrong about my theory and my interpretation of the language in the POS. However, I believe my theory is generally valid because it conforms with all the facts related to a reallocation and with establishing a point chart for a resort. Let me use two examples to illustrate my point.

1. Both BLT and AKV have had specific vacation homes reclassified from one View category to another. Despite these changes, the Residential Units containing those specific vacation homes have not seen any changes in the total number of points for those Units. The number of points required to reserve those vacation homes for the year has changed, yet the Unit's points has remained constant. How do you explain this? In my theory, its because the number of points in a Unit is based on its relative "size" and has nothing to do with View category or type of accommodation. If you subscribe to the theory that a Unit's points represents what it takes to book the vacation homes contained in the Unit for the entire year, then we should have seen changes to the number of points allotted to that Unit. But its a confirmed fact that over the years we haven't seen any Unit's point change. This fact fits my theory better than the alternative theory.

2. The 60 Treehouse Villas at SSR are contained in 30 Residential Units, each Unit comprised of two Treehouse Villas and no other vacation homes. Some people have voiced the opinion that since the THVs' Residential Units have no studios, one-bedrooms, or two-bedrooms, then a reallocation that increased the cost of the THVs on the point chart and a subsequent reduction in the costs of studios, 1BRs, and 2BRs that reside in other Residential Units is invalid. This believe is based on the assumption that a reallocation must be "point-neutral" at the Unit level. My theory does not make that assumption because it does not consider the type of vacation homes comprising the Unit. Instead, my theory holds that reallocations are "point-neutral" at resort level, not the Unit level. Thus, DVCMC can change point requirements for a THV on the point chart and shift that increase/decrease in points to other vacation home types on the point chart because it is not encumbered by which Units these points are coming from. Once again, my theory explains how DVCMC could change the costs of the THVs; the alternate theory doesn't explain it.
So is there no specific language (which does not leave itself open to interpretation) pertaining to the USE of the unit. I think that’s what @KAT4DISNEY was driving at yesterday, that this language pertains to the SALE of units and not the USE. If that makes sense.
 

OKW Lover

Retired and living 2 miles from The Castle.
DIS Lifetime Sponsor
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
My theory does not make that assumption because it does not consider the type of vacation homes comprising the Unit. Instead, my theory holds that reallocations are "point-neutral" at resort level,
That has always been my understanding.
 

wdrl

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2009
But within all the language how did they ever outline or justify the lock-off premium as allowable? Most especially at resorts that have dedicated 1BR's and studios?
When I first bought into DVC, I noticed that it cost more to reserve a studio and a one-bedroom then if I reserved a lock off two-bedroom. Honestly, I didn't question the validity of the lock off premium. However, I thought it was probably justifiable because it costs the condo association more to operate and manage two villas instead of one. Two villas increases the number of check-ins and check-outs, more people visit the front desk, more portfolios and financial transactions have to be done, etc. Sort of like the Costco Effect: its cheaper to sell a single 5-gallon tub of mayonnaise than it is to sell 50 20-ounce jars.

As time went by, I thought some more about the lock off premium. What if (and this is strictly a hypothetical unsupported by any facts) DVCMC has analytics that show when a two-bedroom is reserved the average guest occupancy is 6.14 guests. But when a studio and a one-bedroom are reserved separately the average guest occupancy increases to 7.64 guests. That extra 1.50 in guest occupancy could impact operational costs to the condo association in terms of more housekeeping, more utilities, more maintenance needs, more guests using Member Activities, etc. Maybe DVCMC wants to recoup some of the additional expenses of operating the lock off as two separate bookable villas by charging more? Or maybe DVCMC would rather sell a single 5-gallon tub of mayonnaise? This is just speculation on my part.

I have some data on the lock off premium and how it has changed over the years. I venture to guess if you asked what the premium has been since Day 1 most Members wouldn't have a clue. Personally, I think a lock off premium is justifiable and allowable for the reasons stated above. The real issue is not the existence of a lock off premium but rather the size of the lock off premium. Is a premium of 5% acceptable? 10%? 20%? If I could sit down with DVCMC, I would ask questions about its thought process on how it arrives at the lock off premium.

BTW, my interest in lock off premiums is greater for those resorts, such as BLT, that do not have dedicated studios or one-bedrooms. At least at a resort like BRV that has dedicated studios and one-bedrooms there is some check on the amount of points that can be allocated to them on the point chart. At BLT, there are no studios or one-bedrooms that must be accounted for on its point chart. That is why I went back an edited an earlier post of mine to say that BLT's 5,733,530 points have to fit into only 50 slots on its point chart, not the 110 I originally posted.
 

Connect

TODAY'S HEADLINES

Top